Indian Child Welfare Act US – Indian Children – Family Law

The American Civil Liberties Union, along with 12 ACLU state affiliates, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court today urging the court to uphold the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union, along with 12 ACLU state affiliates, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court today urging the court to uphold the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act. The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) — which establishes basic requirements to protect Native American children from continued forced removal from their families, tribes, and tribal culture — is slated to be reviewed by the Supreme Court this fall via Brackeen v. Haaland.

The Indian Child Welfare Act was passed by Congress in 1978 to address the nationwide epidemic of American Indian children being forcibly removed from their homes by child welfare agencies and placed into non-Native homes at disproportionate rates. Throughout history, federal and state governments have sought to undermine and threaten the existence of tribes via the forced separation and assimilation of Native children. ICWA requires state courts to make active efforts to keep Native families together. The law aims to prioritize the placement of Native children within their extended families or tribal communities, where their cultural identities will be understood and celebrated. If the Supreme Court overturns ICWA, states would once again be allowed to indiscriminately remove Native children from their families and culture while simultaneously depriving tribes of future generations — putting the very existence of tribes in jeopardy.

“Throughout history, the United States government has enacted countless policies to steal Indigenous children from their homes and to erase their identities,” said Theodora Simon (Navajo), Indigenous Justice Advocate with the ACLU of Northern California. “The explicit goal of these policies was, and continues to be, the complete erasure of Indigenous people. If the Indian Child Welfare Act is overturned, tribes will again be stripped of their right to keep their families together. This is a tragedy as we know that having connection to our cultures, languages, and identities is in the best interest of Native children.”

Tribes have an inherent right to govern themselves and make decisions on issues that affect their people — including Native children. The ACLU’s brief argues the Indian Child Welfare Act is constitutional and urges the Supreme Court to uphold the centuries-long legal precedent upholding tribal sovereignty — including tribes’ right and ability to preserve their unique cultural identities, raise their own children and govern themselves.

“Separating children from their families and communities remains one of the most tragic and traumatizing vestiges of colonialism in Alaska,” said ACLU of Alaska Executive Director Mara Kimmel. “We join this litigation to honor our constitutional promise of tribal self-determination and to ensure Alaska’s children and cultures thrive into the future.”

The brief was filed by the ACLU, ACLU of NorCal, ACLU of Alaska, ACLU of Arizona, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Montana, ACLU of Nebraska, ACLU of New Mexico, ACLU of Oklahoma, ACLU of South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming chapter, ACLU of Texas, ACLU of Utah, and ACLU of Washington. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Brackeen v Haaland on November 9, 2022.

This release can be found online here: 

A blog about the case can be found here: 

source 

MORE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT: learn more….

• Supreme Court upholds Indian Child Welfare Act – read here PROTECTING THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT AT THE federal LEVEL
• Click Here for Indian Child Court Forms
• DOCKET NO. No. B314238 in L. A. Cnty. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. D.P. (In re Daphne G.) California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

• In re N.G. The Court also concluded that DPSS had to be ordered to further investigate N.G.’s paternal lineal ancestry

• L. A. Cnty. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. Sandra C. (In re Ezra C.)

  • In Antoinette S., supra, 104 Cal.App.4th 1401,Both California Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(5)(A) and section 224.3 indicate that the ICWA notice requirement is triggered when a person who has an interest in the child “provides information suggesting that the child” is an Indian child. (Italics added.) Mother provided both a specific tribe and a specific family member from whom the ancestry followed. “The Indian status of the child need not be certain to invoke the notice requirement.” (Desiree F., supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 471.) “The determination of a child’s Indian status is up to the tribe; therefore, the [dependency] court needs only a suggestion of Indian ancestry to trigger the notice requirement.” (Nikki R., supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p. 848.)

• • In In re Alice M. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1189 (Alice M.),
    the court held that notice was required after the mother submitted an ICWA-020 indicating that the child may be eligible for membership in an Apache or Navajo tribe. The appellate court held that the information provided on the ICWA-020 “gave the court reason to know [the child] may be an Indian child… The ambiguity in the form and the omission of more detailed information, such as specific tribal affiliation or tribal roll number, do not negate appellant’s stated belief that [the child] may be a member of a tribe or eligible for membership.” (Id. at p. 1198.)

• • (In re J.T. (1997) 166 Vt. 173, 182-83 [693 A.2d 283, 289]),
    Section 224.3 requires notice to the tribe when there is information provided by “[a] person having an interest in the child… suggesting the child is a member of a tribe or eligible for membership in a tribe or [that] one or more of the child’s biological parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents are or were a member of a tribe.” (§ 224.3, subd. (b)(1), italics added.) California Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(5)(A) also specifies that “[t]he circumstances that may provide reason to know the child is an Indian child include…. [¶] [t]he child or a person having an interest in the child, … informs or otherwise provides information suggesting that the child is an Indian child to the court [or] the county welfare agency….” (Italics added.) “The determination of a child’s Indian status is up to the tribe; therefore, the [dependency] court needs only a suggestion of Indian ancestry to trigger the notice requirement.” (In re Nikki R. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 844, 848 (Nikki R.), italics added.)Determining whether enough information has been provided to trigger the ICWA notice provisions requires a fact-sensitive analysis. As noted in In re Pedro N. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 183, 186, “[t]he requisite notice to the tribe or [Bureau] serves a twofold purpose. First, it enables the tribe or [Bureau] to investigate and determine whether the minor is an ‘Indian child.’… [Citations.] Secondly, it advises the tribe or [Bureau] of the proceedings and the tribe’s right to exercise its jurisdiction in the matter or at least intervene in the proceedings. [Citations.]” (Fn. omitted.) Given these purposes “‘it is preferable to err on the side of giving notice and examining thoroughly whether the juvenile is an Indian child.’” (Dwayne P., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 257, citing In re M.C.P. (1989) 153 Vt. 275, 289 [571 A.2d 627, 634-635].)

    The information required to trigger the ICWA notice provisions is minimal in comparison to the showing required “to establish a child is an Indian child within the meaning of ICWA.” (In re Miguel E. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 521, 549; see also Dwayne P., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 258 [the party initiating the dependency proceeding must “distinguish between a showing that may establish a child is an Indian child within the meaning of the ICWA and the minimal showing required to trigger the statutory notice provisions”].) While eligibility to enroll and enrollment are central to a finding that the child is an Indian child within the meaning of the ICWA, a lack of such information does not waive the court’s affirmative duty to provide notice when the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved. (§ 224.3; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(5)(A).)

2023 California Rules of Court

Rule 5.487. Petition to invalidate orders

• (a) Who may petition
  Any Indian child who is the subject of any action for foster-care placement, guardianship or conservatorship placement, custody placement under Family Code section 3041, declaration freeing a child from the custody and control of one or both parents, preadoptive placement, adoptive placement, or termination of parental rights; any parent or Indian custodian from whose custody such child was removed; and the Indian child’s tribe may petition the court to invalidate the action on a showing that the action violated the Indian Child Welfare Act.
  (Subd (a) was amended effective January 1, 2020.)
• (b) Court of competent jurisdiction
  If the Indian child is a dependent child or ward of the juvenile court or the subject of a pending petition, the juvenile court is a court of competent jurisdiction with the authority to hear the request to invalidate the foster placement or termination of parental rights.
• (c) Request to return custody of the Indian child
  • If a final decree of adoption is vacated or set aside, or if the adoptive parents voluntarily consent to the termination of their parental rights, a biological parent or prior Indian custodian may request a return of custody of the Indian child.
    • (1)  The court must reinstate jurisdiction.
    • (2)  In a juvenile case, the juvenile court must hold a new disposition hearing in accordance with 25 United States Code section 1901 et seq. where the court may consider all placement options as stated in Welfare and Institutions Code sections 361.31(b), (c), (d), and (h).
    • (3)  The court may consider placement with a biological parent or prior Indian custodian if the biological parent or prior Indian custodian can show that placement with him or her is not detrimental to the child and that the placement is in the best interests of the child.
    • (4)  The hearing on the request to return custody of an Indian child must be conducted in accordance with statutory requirements and the relevant sections of this rule.

Rule 5.487 renumbered and amended effective January 1, 2020; adopted as rule 5.486 effective January 1, 2008; previously amended effective January 1, 2013

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was passed by Congress in 1978 to protect American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) children and families. Before ICWA, as many as one-third of all AI/AN children were removed from their homes by state child welfare and private adoption agencies, and the vast majority of these children were placed outside of their families and communities. This mass family separation resulted in devastating losses of language, culture, and identity for individuals, families, and entire Tribes. ICWA was created to address this history and prevent further generational trauma.

ICWA was ahead of its time in recognizing core values and principles of child welfare best practice by requiring active efforts to keep children safely in their homes and connected to their families, communities, and culture. This law does not affect all children — its provisions apply only in child welfare cases involving members of federally recognized Tribes, and the Tribes, per their sovereignty, have the ability to define membership. However, the values and spirit embedded in ICWA are critical to the well-being of AI/AN children, youth, and families and should form the basis of child welfare practice for all.

This brief describes four key principles inherent in ICWA, provides examples of these principles in practice, and offers questions for consideration to help agencies further explore how they should apply these principles to support the permanency and well-being of both Native and non-Native children, youth, and families.^1,2

Principle 1: Children’s right to their families and communities

ICWA specifically promotes children’s right to be connected to their extended family, elders, community, and culture. Sheldon Spotted Elk, program director of tribal justice relations at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, describes these connections as concentric circles. When children are situated within these circles, they naturally build resilience. Awareness of connectedness to family, community, and environment has been found to be a protective factor for American Indian and Alaska Native youth.³

In recognition of the importance of these connections, ICWA has a higher standard to prevent removal of an Indian child from their families than other child welfare statutes — including a requirement that children may not be removed without the testimony of a culturally qualified expert witness, except in emergencies (narrowly defined as when a child is in danger of imminent harm). ICWA also governs placement decisions. When children must be removed from their homes, the law dictates that agencies and courts first consider placement with relatives or, if that is not possible, with other families within their Tribal community where they can remain connected to their culture and identity.

For Adams County (Colo.) Children and Family Services, this sometimes means putting extra supports in place or working with a family member to resolve barriers to placement approval. In one case, when a close family friend could take some but not all of a sibling group of four, the agency was able to license a second friend and neighbor to keep the siblings connected. As in this instance, tribal definitions of family relationships should be acknowledged in placement decisions whenever possible. 

The Native Village of Barrow (Alaska) lñupiat Traditional Government Children’s Code explicitly recognizes children’s right to family, extended family, and identity:

A child has the right to learn about and preserve his identity throughout his life, including the right to maintain ties to his birth parents, his extended family and his village. A child has the right to learn about and benefit from tribal history, culture, language, spiritual traditions, and philosophy.

The responsibility to support a child’s identity in these ways is assigned to parents, extended family members, and the Tribe as a whole. When separation from birth parents is necessary, the code specifies that the preferred placement is lñuguq, or placement with an extended family member. The word Iñuguq “refers to a traditional Inupiat adoption process in which a child gains, but does not lose, a parent.”  

Implementation of ICWA requirements currently falls far short of achieving the statute’s goal. AI/AN children are still three times more likely to be removed by state child welfare systems than non-Native children. While recognizing the particular urgency for AI/AN children, child welfare agencies also can act on the knowledge that all children fare best when they can remain safely with their own families, and that when they must be removed from their homes, placement with relatives produces the best outcomes. 

Questions to consider:

• In what ways do your agency’s policies assert and protect all children’s rights to their families, communities, and culture?
• How could your jurisdiction reassess removal criteria and keep more families safely together with in-home support? 
• How can your agency apply an equity lens to understanding and addressing the root causes of a family’s involvement with the agency?
• In what ways do your agency’s placement priorities and resource family approval policies align with ICWA by prioritizing placement for all children within their extended families and communities?
• How does your agency honor the definition of relatives as determined by the family, clan, and Tribe?

Principle 2: “Active efforts” to preserve and reunify families

ICWA’s requirement of “active efforts” is a higher standard of engagement than the Title IV-E program’s “reasonable efforts” requirement. Active efforts are defined in regulation as “affirmative, active, thorough, and timely” efforts by the agency to maintain or reunify children with their families.⁴ They are intended to help parents complete their case plans and access or develop resources necessary to keep or bring their child safely home. Examples include helping parents overcome barriers to services (such as making phone calls together rather than handing a parent a list of phone numbers), helping parents access supportive community resources (including housing, financial, and mental health support), and facilitating transportation to ensure parents and their children can attend appointments or visits.

Adams County acknowledges that providing active efforts can be time intensive. The county supports these efforts in ICWA cases by having a dedicated ICWA caseworker who is knowledgeable about the requirements. The county strives to keep that dedicated caseload low, when the agency’s workflow allows, to support spending extra time on each case. The ICWA caseworker also serves as an expert and resource throughout the agency, providing assistance to other caseworkers who may have ICWA cases.

ICWA requires that active efforts be provided in a culturally competent manner, and “in partnership with the Indian child and the Indian child’s parents, extended family members, Indian custodians, and tribe.” Regulations describe engaging with the child’s Tribe early to determine what types of services would be most culturally appropriate and what cultural resources or programs are available within the Tribe. It also includes ensuring all services are trauma-informed and follow best practices in addressing historical and intergenerational trauma. Being trauma-informed means that agencies must be skillful and patient in building trusting relationships with families and communities that may have significant personal and historical reasons to mistrust state and county government systems.

Questions to consider:

• What active efforts do your agency’s caseworkers regularly make to safely preserve and reunify all families? Do they equal the efforts everyone would want for their own families?
• What additional steps could help ensure that your agency’s efforts on behalf of all children and families are not just “reasonable” but “active”?
• In what ways does your agency consider children and parents’ culture when creating case plans and providing services? How could your agency better partner with families and their communities to ensure programs and services are culturally appropriate, and to ensure active efforts are successful? 
• In what ways could your agency’s services be more trauma-informed, particularly in addressing historical and intergenerational trauma? 
• How can your agency provide training and ongoing coaching and support to caseworkers to build relationships with families that are centered on trust and cultural humility? 

Principle 3: Valuing inclusive and diverse cultural practices

ICWA was created to address harm inflicted on AI/AN communities due to the imposition of dominant cultural values, including assimilation. Therefore, the law requires jurisdictions to view child welfare matters from a different cultural perspective — that of the family’s own tribal community. ICWA regulations state that jurisdictions are to “conduct Indian child-custody proceedings in a way that reflects the cultural and social standards prevailing in Indian communities and families.” 

One way this is done is requiring a qualified expert witness to testify from a social and cultural perspective as to whether children are at risk of serious emotional or physical harm, prior to removal. Jurisdictions with ICWA courts also have found that cultural training by local Tribes can greatly increase understanding and appreciation of a Tribe’s traditional child-rearing practices and cultural values. 

This change in approach requires cultural humility. In particular, child welfare professionals may need to critically analyze long-held assumptions about which family structures or communities can best support child well-being. For example, courts sometimes have required children in ICWA cases to be moved from unrelated foster homes to relatives’ homes, even after the children have bonded with the foster family. While this may contradict western ideas about the best interests of children, it is important to understand and honor Tribal values that prioritize long-term, multigenerational connections among family, Tribe, and culture over children’s short-term connections to one specific nuclear family. “The relationships that we develop with our tribal partners, and our understanding of their values, are so critical,” emphasizes District Judge Katherine R. Delgado, Adams County, Colo., ICWA Court, “I would encourage other judges and child welfare leaders to go visit some of their local Tribes, develop those relationships, and be open to understanding the issues that our Native Nations face.”

Questions to consider:

• What cultures are present among the children and families your agency serves? How can your agency learn more about the range of childrearing practices and values that exist in different cultures and communities?
• In what ways do dominant cultural assumptions influence agency decisions about the best interests of children? Is it possible that more children could remain safely with their families if these assumptions were reconsidered? What traditions and values are important to the family? 
• Are there language and literacy barriers to be mindful of? What kind of community support is needed for the family and caseworker to have a meaningful dialogue? 
• How could the concept of a culturally qualified expert witness be applied to non-ICWA child welfare cases?
• How might your agency work with local cultural resource providers to support greater cultural competence of services to families?
• How could your agency work alongside families and communities to better support healing for the generational and historical trauma experienced by children, youth, and families of color?

Principle 4: Authentic engagement with Tribes

ICWA provides for a Tribe to be included in child welfare cases concerning member children. Although the Tribe’s perspective does not always prevail, the law guarantees Tribes the right to participate fully in the case, be heard by the court, provide expert witnesses, and define placement preferences for their children. 

ICWA specialty courts make a particular effort to include Tribe leaders and representatives in all cases involving their children, something that COVID-era virtual hearings have made a little easier. This also can be facilitated by scheduling ICWA cases at a consistent date and time that is convenient for the Tribe so that representatives are present even at early shelter hearings that offer limited opportunities for advance notice. There is emerging evidence that when a Tribe representative is present at a child’s first hearing, permanency occurs four months faster on average and reunification occurs seven months faster. “I see big differences in how caseworkers are working with the Tribes, the response back from the Tribes, and their efforts to work together toward reunification,” notes Judge Kathleen Quigley, Pima County, Ariz., ICWA court, “Without the Tribe’s participation, our ICWA court would not be where it is.”

Some ICWA courts incorporate cultural art, Tribal flags, and Native practices such as smudging in the courtroom. Other jurisdictions have found that creating ICWA units with dedicated caseworkers, supervisors, and attorneys facilitates relationship-building and collaboration between the state, Tribe social workers, and any local culturally appropriate service providers. Family group conferences can offer another opportunity to invite Tribe representation and relinquish agency control of the process.

On a systems level, power-sharing might look like creating workgroups comprised of equal numbers of state representatives and Tribe members. For example, Washington’s Tribal State Workgroup is a joint effort to review and update the Department of Children, Youth, and Families’ ICWA policies and procedures.

Meeting Tribes and families where they are, beyond the walls of child welfare agency offices, demonstrates respect and can help build cross-cultural understanding. Judge Delgado of Adams County recalls the impact of a trip she took to visit several nearby tribal nations and meet with tribal judges: “That trip really cemented my passion for not only the black-letter law of ICWA, but the spirit of the law.” In Yellowstone County, Mont., members of the Yellowstone ICWA Court Team traveled more than 100 miles to meet with the Tribe’s Human Services Department to staff cases and to introduce themselves to new executive branch officials and Tribal Council members. During COVID, the State and the Tribe continue to collaborate on these cases through monthly zoom calls. This and other relationship-building efforts have resulted in increased kinship placements and fewer terminations of parental rights. 

Questions to consider:

• In what ways does your agency share power with families and communities by meeting them where they are? 
• How could community leaders and representatives have a greater voice in your agency’s services and decision-making (for example, by ensuring they are included in all family group conferences)? 
• How can your agency embrace and incorporate tribal culture and Native practices in its engagement with Native families both inside and outside the courtroom? 
• How can your agency incorporate culturally sensitive practices for any family it works with? 

1 Content of this brief was informed by consultation with members of the Knowledge Management Lived Experience Advisory Team on Oct. 5 and 21, 2021. This team includes youth, parents, kinship caregivers, and foster parents with lived experience of the child welfare system who serve as strategic partners with Family Voices United, a collaboration between FosterClub, Generations United, the Children’s Trust Fund Alliance, and Casey Family Programs. Members who contributed to this brief include Dee Bonnick, Sonya Begay, Aleks Talsky, Gloria Torma, and Jeremiah Donier.
2 Content of this brief was informed by interviews with Judge Kathleen Quigley, Pima County, Ariz., on Aug. 17, 2021; District Judge Katherine R. Delgado, Adams County, Colo., on Aug. 17, 2021; Judge Sally Tarnowski, St. Louis County, Minn., on Aug. 10, 2021; Sheldon Spotted Elk, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, on July 9, 2021; Shana King, ICWA Law Center, on July 13, 2021; Angela Cuellar and Peter Pace, Adams County (Colo.) Children and Family Services, on Sept. 7, 2021.
3 Saniguz Ullrich, J. (2019). For the love of our children: an Indigenous connectedness framework. AlterNative, 15(2), 121-130.
4 In determining whether active efforts have been met, the courts have discretion to consider the facts and circumstances.
5 source

The Supreme Court honored tribal nations with their decision

Indian welfare act

read a web version on a government site here

Passed House amended (10/14/1978)

(Measure passed House, amended, in lieu of H.R. 12533)

Indian Child Welfare Act – =Title I: Child Custody Proceedings= – Declares that it is the policy of Congress to establish minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families (extended families) and for the placement of such children in foster or adoptive homes which will reflect Indian culture.

Grants an Indian tribe jurisdiction exclusive as to any State over custody proceedings involving an Indian child who resides within the reservation of such tribe or is a ward of a tribal court except where jurisdiction is vested in the State by existing Federal law.

Allows the Indian tribe of a child to intervene at any point in a State Court proceeding for the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child.

Stipulates that, upon application by an Indian individual who has reached age 18 and who was the subject of an adoptive placement, the court which entered the final placement decree shall inform such individual of the tribal affiliation, if any, of his or her biological parents, and provide such other information as may be necessary to protect any rights flowing from his or her tribal relationship.

Allows any Indian tribe which became subject to State jurisdiction pursuant to Federal law to reassume jurisdiction over child custody proceedings upon approval of a petition by the Secretary of the Interior.

Provides for emergency removal of an Indian child, who is a resident of or domiciled on a reservation but temporarily located off the reservation, from the parent or Indian custodian and the emergency placement of such child under applicable State law, in order to prevent harm to such child. Stipulates that such removal or placement must be terminated immediately when no longer necessary to prevent imminent physical harm to such child.

=Title II: Indian Child and Family Programs= – Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make grants to Indian tribes and organizations for the establishment and operation of Indian child and family service programs on or near reservations and for the preparation and implementation of child welfare codes. States that the objective of every Indian child and family service programs shall be to prevent the breakup of Indian families.

Authorizes every Indian tribe to operate and maintain facilities for: (1) the counseling or treatment of Indian families or individuals; (2) the temporary custody of Indian children; and (3) legal representation and advice to Indian families involved in tribal, State, or Federal child custody proceedings.

Authorizes the Secretary to make grants to Indian organizations to establish and operate off-reservation Indian child and family service programs.

=Title III: Recordkeeping, Information Availability, and Timetables= – Directs the Secretary to collect and maintain records of all Indian child placements which are affected under the date of this Act. Requires the Secretary to insure that the confidentiality of such information be maintained where the court records contain an affidavit that the identity of the biological parents remain confidential.

Directs the Secretary to promulgate, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.

=Title IV: Miscellaneous= – Directs the Secretary to prepare, in consultation with appropriate agencies in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, a report on the feasibility of providing Indian children with schools located near their homes, and to submit such report to the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs and House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. source

tHANKS for readings

Indian Child Court Forms